Over the course of my work with the text of Vergil as read in Macrobius, Saturnalia, I have encountered this little gem of a problem, which is, I think, one of the only places in the entire text of Vergil where the editors choose to print the text of the indirect witnesses rather than the text of the capital manuscripts.

If I use too much of the lingo of my studies, please ask or correct me or something.

All the capital manuscripts of Vergil read et sulpura viva; I don't have access to Geymonat's edition, so I cannot say what the Carolingian mss. say, except that Ribbeck in his edition quotes Beda with et sulpura viva.

One will of course notice this one point: the printed text here isn't exactly easy to scan, in fact we have to accept a hypermetrum that in my eyes isn't attractive at all, since the anceps now scans short. Consider, however, the indirect evidence (in rough chronological order):

Re-reading this, it sounds like total gibberish: of course we never see a dactyl in the sixth foot, a hexametre is always catalectic. His next example, Aen.6.33, however, is also an example of a hypermetrum, which justifies his reading if not his argument.

Servius (with DServius in italics) in his commentary writes ad locum:

vivaqve svlpvra dactylicus versus, quod in fine dactylum habeat.

Exactly the same as Victorinus. Servius uses the same terminus for the hypermetric verse in one other place, ad Georg.2.69:

Same definition, even word for word in DServ., but different nomenclature. Difference here is of course that umorem has a long o.

Last place to cite our verse, the Scholia Bernensia, a collection of scholia from the tenth cent., I think.:

et spumas miscent argenti vivaque sulphura dactylicus versus

Back to the terminus of Victorinus.

Mynors in his edition cites one, and just one reading from a Carolingian manuscript, his r, which has viva et sulpura, which is even harder to scan, being spondaic and all.

Now, this is about as comprehensive an account as possible of the direct evidence and the grammarians' citations. Only one piece of 'intertextual evidence' (or whatever you wish to name it) have I been able to find, Quintus Serenus, liber medicinalis 35:

So now it all boils down to this one question, which Victorinus and all this evidence inevitably asks us:If you were to edit the text of Vergil's Georgics, would you join Victorinus, Servius, Servius Danielinus (who might have been Donatus), Macrobius and the Berne Scholiast and write vivaque sulpura, or would you be one of the quidam who preferred the 'metric' reading with no indirect evidence but the evidence of three manuscripts that have survived the centuries since before the fall of Rome and countless examples of sulpura in the fifth foot, including one writer (from the third century) who chose to copy Vergil's words in the easier, metrical version?

timeodanaos wrote:et spumas miscent argenti vivaque sulpura...One will of course notice this one point: the printed text here isn't exactly easy to scan, in fact we have to accept a hypermetrum that in my eyes isn't attractive at all, since the anceps now scans short. Consider, however, the indirect evidence (in rough chronological order):

timeodanaos wrote:What about the fact that all the cited examples have a vowel-initial line following?

Finally I get what you are talking about (my fault not yours). I think that the terminology can conceal the sense of the argument and that you can use various devices to keep the beat. For example, with elision the line doesn't sound like an odd "sulpu" with hiatus, but not any different from "sulpur" because we hear the R in Ridaeaeque so clearly and the Rī- syllable held for three beats, seeming to break the meter except the first beat is taken by the end of the first line to keep the hexametric beat. Do you get what I mean?Deinde capio (tam sensim per me non te stetit) . Nonnunquam terminologia sensum obscurat; exercitatione autem metrum teneatur varios per dolos. Exempli gratiâ, per elisionem nonnè "sulpur" sonatur (non "sulpu" cum hiato) a litterâ versu sequente adsumptâ quod tam clarè sonitur R littera proximum versum incipiens nec adversùs prosodiae leges quod, etiamsi prima syllaba tres temporum est, unum temporum a primo versu conducitur. Capisne sensum meum?

I think I sort of get what you mean. I would still be worried that my personal feelings about the length of the anceps (always feels long) would be offended - that or my feelings about the quantity of the syllable -pu- would be offended! That's why I'm hesitant to accept the choice of the modern editors, who choose the hypermetric version against all manuscript evidence. The critical principle is sound, utrum in alterum; but, as said, feelings come in the way. I'm all for hypermetric lines and synaphia when the anceps is made up of a long vowel.

Now - I would really like to hear your opinion on the textual evidence, if you have any opinion - I'm trying hard not to let my personal feelings about versification get in my way, you see, since I'm using this as part of my exam this semester.

OK, I looked at the sources, Victorinus and Servius, and I think that it doesn't matter what word you use, "dactylicus versus, quod in fine dactylum habeat" or "versus hypermetricus".One says, it looks like a dactyl but actually the line is followed by a vowel so no real problem.The other word says, the line looks too long but it's not really because it's followed by a vowel. Except for the "omnia" one according to Victorinus (who doesn't talk about the following vowel on the next line, but Servius does) so maybe Victorinus doesn't get it unless in someplace I didn't see.

I don't think the terminology matters either. I do think it's remarkable that there are two apparently synonymic and interchangeable terms in use at the same time, though. That's why I remark on it. I review (sort of) the evidence in a bit of detail because I haven't seen it assessed in any other place. The editors just choose the indirectly transmitted text because it's more likely to have been corrupted into the directly transmitted, but there's no discussion of the significance of the vulgate text, which is, in my view, quite significant, seeing as it is apparently the known text already in early times.

Hearing your recording and re-reciting the verses a few times, I'm inclined to agree that it sounds dulcius; if only for the variation in rhythm. I read verse aloud with normal stress, disregarding the so-called ictus, and the hypermetric verse really has something exciting about it.